Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No – the special pleading for "God" is yours, not mine remember?

This is exceptionally dim even by your standards. It’s not that there’s a “relationship” between them, it’s that arguments that are bad stay bad regardless of which of those outcomes they produce.

Why is such a simple point so difficult for you?

Your entire schtick relies on it, only you don’t understand what you’re doing. It’s a simple enough formula: you make up new meanings for terms like “materialism” such that they must be claimed to be universally true; then you argue that that straw man is not something that’s demonstrable; then you say, “OK, even if I’m guessing about “God” then so are you about materialism etc".

Let me put it to you once more.
What similarities are there between God and Leprechauns beyond both are unfalsifiable?

Secondly I am using the Wikipedia definition of philosophical naturalism/materialism and physicalism. I am not making those up but I suggest if you disagree with them it is on the basis of you making up definitions.

[Sassy]

Jesus is the Son of God.  The bible reveals God as a person and his will for man to do right.
The main core teaching is God loves us and wants us to love one another.

If you, lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, covet thy neighbours goods or do anything which harms others or ignores Gods love then why would you want any part of God and his love to be true?

Does searching for God mean that we are ever really satisfied with what we have in life?

Why do people think the created proves that the creator doesn't exist?

In truth following God and obeying his word bring it's own truth the person.

If you don't want it, you won't seek or do it.

But those who seek find.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Let me put it to you once more.

What similarities are there between God and Leprechauns beyond both are unfalsifiable?

No, let me put it you once more. Any similarities beyond the two being unverifiable are completely, utterly, unequivocally, absolutely, irredeemably irrelevant to the point being made.

Still with me? Good.

OK then, the point that’s actually being made then is that, when an argument produces either outcome with equal facility, then it’s probably a bad argument.

I really don’t know how to put this more simply for you. It’s a point about the quality of certain arguments, not about relationships between the outcomes they happen to produce.

Secondly I am using the Wikipedia definition of philosophical naturalism/materialism and physicalism. I am not making those up but I suggest if you disagree with them it is on the basis of you making up definitions.

Oh dear. Here’s Wiki on naturalism (my emphasis):

“Assuming naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment, called methodological naturalism.[ The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge based on an assumed paradigm.

What you’re thinking of is physicalism. Wiki again (also with my emphasis):

“Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.”

If you could ever find someone who argued “naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment”/physicalism then I suppose you could respond with a, “but how would you ever know that?”.

Two problems with that though:

First, it’s not something anyone here actually says – and it’s certainly not something I’ve ever said. You know full well that I’ve many a time talked about the problem of unknown unknowns, so claiming anything to be “absolute truth” is axiomatically unsupportable.

Second though, it’s still an argument for going nuclear. What you’re actually saying is, “OK, I can’t prove “God” but look – you can’t prove (my straw man version of) materialism either, therefore – um – we’re even-stevens!”

Which – for reasons you consistently either lie about or ignore, is stupid.

[Alan Burns]

Jesus is the Son of God.  The bible reveals God as a person and his will for man to do right.
The main core teaching is God loves us and wants us to love one another.

If you, lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, covet thy neighbours goods or do anything which harms others or ignores Gods love then why would you want any part of God and his love to be true?

Does searching for God mean that we are ever really satisfied with what we have in life?

Why do people think the created proves that the creator doesn't exist?

In truth following God and obeying his word bring it's own truth the person.

If you don't want it, you won't seek or do it.

But those who seek find.

Well said, Sassy

[Gordon]

Well said, Sassy

True: as a textbook example of fallacious nonsense it would be hard to beat, but no doubt you'll keep trying.

[Nearly Sane]

Well said, Sassy

So for example on this board, you and Sassy, are willing to say that those such as Floo, Rhiannon, Jeremyp, Dicky Underpants, who have all stated they sought but did not find are liars.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So for example on this board, you and Sassy, are willing to say that those such as Floo, Rhiannon, Jeremyp, Dicky Underpants, who have all stated they sought but did not find are liars.

Have you considered that cuts both ways?

[Nearly Sane]

Have you considered that cuts both ways?

I might except that makes no sense. 

[Sassy]

So for example on this board, you and Sassy, are willing to say that those such as Floo, Rhiannon, Jeremyp, Dicky Underpants, who have all stated they sought but did not find are liars.

So if you use that measure can't you say the same about them and yourself about us? Wouldn't you be calling us liars?

No! it isn't acceptable. Because the bible tells us in Christ teachings about the sower and the seed that not all will bear fruit and will fall away.
So it is not about lying or calling others liars.  We know that Christ has warned all who come to God through him that not all bear fruit.

So the answer is a resounding and clear NO to your suggestion. 

[Alan Burns]

your first task should be to demonstrate that there is a “soul” at all. I’d suggest that you start with a coherent definition, then find some logic for it in principle, then find some evidence for it.

The evidence for the soul is aptly demonstrated by our gift of conscious free will, which science does not explain.  All science can offer is "illusion".

[Nearly Sane]

The evidence for the soul is aptly demonstrated by our gift of conscious free will, which science does not explain.  All science can offer is "illusion".

why are you lying?

[Enki]

The evidence for the soul is aptly demonstrated by our gift of conscious free will, which science does not explain.  All science can offer is "illusion".

Or to put it another way, the evidence for the existence of a soul is in no way demonstrated by our state of conscious awareness, a state which neuroscientists are making strides towards, with promising areas of research associated with the integrated information theory and the global workspace theory in particular, although the hard problem of consciousness still eludes us. Also there is not the slightest evidence that any such thing as 'spiritual determinism' exists, and no substance to the idea that this vague, undefined and unevidenced conjecture informs our apparent free will allowing it to make non deterministic decisions. On the contrary there is a growing body of evidence which seems to suggest that the brain is quite capable of convincing itself that it has made a free choice after the decision was made.

[Alan Burns]

.... there is a growing body of evidence which seems to suggest that the brain is quite capable of convincing itself that it has made a free choice after the decision was made.

Which just confirms that science is incapable of fully explaining the reality of conscious free will in human beings.  It is not an illusion.  Please do not allow science to talk you out of existence.  You are all spiritual entities with the power to consciously choose, manipulate, design, .... choose your own destiny.

[Enki]

Alan,

Which just confirms that science is incapable of explaining the reality of conscious free will in human beings.

No, it suggests just the opposite, in fact.

It is not an illusion.

You've just written those words down, because, at that particular moment, you had no other choice.

Please do not allow science to talk you out of existence.  You are all spiritual entities with the power to consciously choose, manipulate, design, .... choose your own destiny.

I can't help thinking of 'The Life of Brian' at this point, with alterations, of course. Here's my version(vision) of the crowd scene:

Alan: Please, please, please listen! I’ve got one or two things to say.
Alan's Imaginary Crowd: Tell us! Tell us both of them!
Alan: Look, you've got to realise there is a soul and there really is free will. You’ve got to think for your selves! you're all individuals! All you've got to do is believe me when I say I know that I am right.
The Crowd: Yes! We’re all individuals and we believe you and we know you are right!
Alan: You’re all spiritual entities!
The Crowd: Yes! We ARE all spiritual entities!
Man in Crowd: I’M not.
The Crowd: Bugger off! We're all of one mind here.

 

[torridon]

So if you use that measure can't you say the same about them and yourself about us? Wouldn't you be calling us liars?

That's not comparing like with like.  It is the contention that your truth is valid for everyone that is clearly not borne out by the evidence; it fails to recognise the diversity within human minds.  Most people look for deeper meaning or understanding in life at some point, when they are ready; but not everyone arrives at the same conclusions; it that were the case then humanity would be of a single mind, effectively, but we aren't; there is considerable diversity across time and culture.

[torridon]

The evidence for the soul is aptly demonstrated by our gift of conscious free will, which science does not explain.  All science can offer is "illusion".

Maybe that is because it is an illusion, in a sense, and some of us see no virtue in becoming science deniers, preferring to engage with findings even if it means challenging what you previously held to be true. And as some (literally, and others) have been at pains to point out, it is not just science, it is deeper than that, at heart it is a problem of logic and concept in that a choice has to be made on some basis or it is random, irrespective of the nature of the decision maker.

[Stranger]

The evidence for the soul is aptly demonstrated by our gift of conscious free will, which science does not explain.  All science can offer is "illusion".

And you and your 'soul' malarkey have explained exactly nothing.

Before you can say anything at all about 'free will' you need to define what it is - something you have totally failed to do. You raised the question of determinism in the physical brain as an objection, but have then run away from addressing the same question when applied to your 'soul'.

In fact, what you have effectively done is say "this conscious thingy is difficult to explain, it must be magic - and I'll call this magic a 'soul'" closely followed by "oh, and that validates my own superstitions."

Before you criticize what science is telling us about consciousness and what science and logic tells us about 'free will' you need to face up to the fact that you have contributed nothing but a meaningless word, circular arguments, unsupported assertions and avoidance.

[floo]

Jesus is the Son of God.  The bible reveals God as a person and his will for man to do right.
The main core teaching is God loves us and wants us to love one another.

If you, lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, covet thy neighbours goods or do anything which harms others or ignores Gods love then why would you want any part of God and his love to be true?

Does searching for God mean that we are ever really satisfied with what we have in life?

Why do people think the created proves that the creator doesn't exist?

In truth following God and obeying his word bring it's own truth the person.

If you don't want it, you won't seek or do it.

But those who seek find.

If the Bible is an example of god's 'love', it isn't worth having!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The evidence for the soul is aptly demonstrated by our gift of conscious free will, which science does not explain.  All science can offer is "illusion".

When you first started posting this kind of thing you were thought to be ignorant of the logic and evidence that undoes you, so were just wrong.

When the logic and evidence that undoes you were explained you just ignored the explanation and repeated the mistake. That made you obdurate and wrong.

When questions and challenges were put to you about the huge problems and contradictions with your conjecture "soul", you dissembled and repeated the mistake. That made you shifty and wrong.

When the logic and evidence that undoes you was set out again, many times, at length and in very simply terms so you could grasp it you just ignored it again and repeated the mistake once more. That makes you dishonest and wrong.

What then is the point of trying to educate you when you’re so irredeemably lost even to the possibility of being corrected?

For what it’s worth, here are some of the reason you’re wrong I posted a while back and that you just ignored in favour of repeating your mistake like a mantra:

- our understanding of consciousness is incomplete, but the phenomenon is entirely consistent with it being an emergent property of brains, just as other incompletely understood phenomena are also emergent properties (fluid dynamics and wetness for example). You no more have a reason to abandon that explanation therefore than you’d have a reason to abandon the natural childbirth explanation in favour of stork theory;

- the “control” function you say is necessary is described by the activities of the pre-frontal cortex. We and many other species have a pre-frontal cortex, and the evidence from neuroscience tells us unequivocally that they too experience fear, anxiety, altruism etc as we do. When the pre-frontal cortex is damaged moreover exactly the functions you ascribe to "soul" are altered or removed;

- if nonetheless you want to invent something you call “soul” you’re immediately beset by problems of having no way to define it, no way to identify it, and no way to reconcile the logical contradictions inherent in a conjecture that must itself operate either as a function of cause and effect, or that fires off orders randomly. And “I don’t have all the details yet” is just dishonest when in fact what you mean is, “I have no details at all”; and

- for all I know, your claims “God”, “soul” might be right, just as my claim “leprechauns” might be right. So far at least, every argument you’ve made to explain why we should think you’re right has been wrong. Not “not watertight”, but flat out, stone cold, embarrassingly hopeless wrong. When eventually in response you retreat to “well, that’s my perception anyway” that’s fine for you, but it leaves you no basis whatever to proselytise for your personal beliefs being true for anyone else.

 

[Alan Burns]

For what it’s worth, here are some of the reason you’re wrong I posted a while back and that you just ignored in favour of repeating your mistake like a mantra: .....

If you look back you will find that I provided alternative explanations for all these scenarios showing how the spiritual properties of the human soul can provide the reality we perceive.  The frontal cortex and emergent property explanations derive from uncontrolled deterministic events which do not fully explain our abilities to consciously control and manipulate and choose.  These material entities play a part, but so does the soul.

[Nearly Sane]

If you look back you will find that I provided alternative explanations for all these scenarios showing how the spiritual properties of the human soul can provide the reality we perceive.  The frontal cortex and emergent property explanations derive from uncontrolled deterministic events which do not fully explain our abilities to consciously control and manipulate and choose.  These material entities play a part, but so does the soul.

begging the question again dishonestly

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If you look back you will find that I provided alternative explanations for all these scenarios showing how the spiritual properties of the human soul can provide the reality we perceive.  The frontal cortex and emergent property explanations derive from uncontrolled deterministic events which do not fully explain our abilities to consciously control and manipulate and choose.  These material entities play a part, but so does the soul.

If you look back you will find that you did no such thing. "Our ability to consciously control" etc is an impression of what's happening because that's the way it feels, but it says nothing to the underlying reality of cause and effect. You only have an "alternative" explanation in the sense that stork theory is an alternative explanation to natural childbirth - in other words, you have no explanation at all.   

[Alan Burns]

So for example on this board, you and Sassy, are willing to say that those such as Floo, Rhiannon, Jeremyp, Dicky Underpants, who have all stated they sought but did not find are liars.

But have they finished searching?
Will they eventually find God?
I hope and pray that they will.

[Nearly Sane]

But have they finished searching?
Will they eventually find God?
I hope and pray that they will.

So you don't know that those that seek find but are willingly to lie and state it as a fact! Why do you lie so much?

[ekim]

Maybe that is because it is an illusion, in a sense, and some of us see no virtue in becoming science deniers, preferring to engage with findings even if it means challenging what you previously held to be true. And as some (literally, and others) have been at pains to point out, it is not just science, it is deeper than that, at heart it is a problem of logic and concept in that a choice has to be made on some basis or it is random, irrespective of the nature of the decision maker.

Although I don't support everything that Alan says, I do try to see things from his angle.  I don't think he is a complete science denier but does try to challenge it within the constraints of his belief system.  His motto is 'The Truth will set you free' and unfortunately this means that it will set you free from belief.  As regards 'choice', this is likely to be determined by, amongst other things, beliefs held including possibly that what we might declare as random, is the Will of God.  The 'free' choice then becomes choosing between those determined by what can loosely be called the contents of the self centred psyche or those determined by his God.  The destination is a heavenly state which is ever present but clarity of 'vision' and purity of 'heart' are the requirements for the experience.